A blog by Oleg Shilovitsky
Information & Comments about Engineering and Manufacturing Software

Top Five Disappointing PLM Technologies

Top Five Disappointing PLM Technologies
olegshilovitsky
olegshilovitsky
22 May, 2009 | 2 min for reading

Once in a while, industries, companies, or developers come up with something that they think will change the technological and product landscape. PLM is no exception in this lineup of excitements and disappointments. Here are five technologies, that disappointed me in the CAD/CAE/PDM/PLM world listed from least to most disappointing): 

#5 – 3D Search

The CAD and PLM industries probably developed the most advanced capabilities to create 3D models, design products and everything around us. But they are pretty unsuccessful at being able to find them, once designed.

 #4 – Viewers

One of the top requirements of PDM since the early days is the ability to view what designed without running a CAD system used to design a specific product. So, I’d expect that viewers should be a commodity. But, unfortunately, this is not happened and the ability to view products/models continues to be a challenge for an organization

 #3 – CAD Interoperability

The inability of CAD vendors to agree on how to exchange models continues to affect people in the industry. You can see people spending their entire lives translating files from one CAD to another. You can still find “translation departments” in organizations. Quite a large amount of companies in our industry still focuses primarily on interoperability. So far, it looks like this problem will be still with us for awhile…

 #2 – PDM/PLM to ERP Integrations

When I look at the problem of integrating PDM (and later PLM) with the ERP environment, I see that the same list of unresolved problems has remained for at least  the last ten years. New PDM, PLM and ERP systems have been developed, technologies for EAI, middleware, programming languages have changed, but the problem of how  to integrate PDM/PLM with ERP in a robust way still faces us.

 #1 – PLM Standards

This is my ‘favorite’ disappointment. Standards are like toothbrushes. Everybody needs them, but nobody wants to use those of somebody else. There is some correlation between this problem and CAD interoperability. There are a few more/less stable standards – STEP, IGES. But this space continues to disappoint me with the lack of an approach that can change the status quo of “yet another standard development” adopted by one or two vendors only.

 So far, this is my perspective on my disappointments. At the same time, I see each topic in my list as both a challenge and opportunity. And I’m looking forward to an interesting (rather than disappointing) discussion…

Recent Posts

Also on BeyondPLM

4 6
9 October, 2017

Engineering.com article – 4 Things Users Hate Most About Their CAD Systems came to my reading list over the weekend. Take...

16 July, 2010

Time ago, I had chance to write about PLM and Internet of Things on PLM Think Tank. Some interesting news...

21 August, 2015

Integration is one of the most painful aspects of PLM deployment and implementations. Especially when you need to integrate engineering,...

27 January, 2010

I want to raise discussion about reporting in PLM. We don’t see it much in marketing materials about PLM. I...

28 November, 2021

Earlier this week, I shared my thoughts about connected PLM and how the organization of a semantic data layer can...

12 January, 2025

It is this time of the year again, and I want to share my thoughts about what dynamics and trends...

3 January, 2012

The beginning of the year is a good time to think about BHAGs (Big Hairy Audacious Goals). Cloud was one...

11 December, 2019

Digital Twin is trending. Unless you lived under the rock for the last few years, I’m sure you heard this...

18 November, 2023

Earlier this week I attended Autodesk University 2023. The event back to its regular location Las Vegas Venetian (Sands Expo),...

Blogroll

To the top